Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

Bill Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> 
> Revisionist historians like to tell us it preserves the State's power
> to maintain a militia. Why doesn't it say;
> 
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the power if the several States to establish and maintain a
> militia shall not be infringed."

Perhaps because it was the People (white males... etc) that owned the
guns... not the states.

> The Constitution's purpose is to grant certain powers to the
> government not grant rights to the people. 
> 
> Please show me where any of the founders meant that the right to keep
> and bear arms was meant to be exclusively within the context of a
> militia.  I think they might be astonished at the suggestion.

I have NEVER said this. I have consistently said that I believed the
2ed recognized state rights to control arms if they wished... say to
slaves... but no such controls could interfere with the operation of
the militia. I have also said that I believe the right to bear arms is
in the ninth to the extent the federal or state governments don't
restrict rights per the 10th. Since I've done more reading I believe
that the First Congress intended the well-regulated militia to be a
counterweight to a standing army should one ever be created. That's a
pretty well established historical argument. We see in Federalist 46
and the House debates on the second amendment for example.